Biting winters driven by global warming: scientists

Dec 21, 2010 by Marlowe Hood

Sports fishermen try their luck despite freezing temperatures at Slovakia's dam Liptovska Mara on December 5. Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.

Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.

The culprit, according to a new study, is the Arctic's receding surface ice, which at current rates of decline could to disappear entirely during summer months by century's end.

The mechanism uncovered triples the chances that future winters in Europe and north Asia will be similarly inclement, the study reports.

Bitingly cold weather wreaked havoc across Europe in the winter months of 2005-2006, dumping snow in southern Spain and plunging eastern Europe and Russia into an unusually -- and deadly -- deep freeze.

Another sustained cold streak in 2009-2010, gave Britain its coldest winter in 14 years, and wreaked transportation havoc across the continent. This year seems poised to deliver a repeat performance.

At first glance, this flurry of frostiness would seem to be at odds with standard climate change scenarios in which Earth's temperature steadily rises, possibly by as much as five or six degrees Celsius (9.0 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

Climate sceptics who question the gravity of global warming or that humans are to blame point to the deep chills as confirmation of their doubts.

Such assertions, counter scientists, mistakenly conflate the long-term patterns of climate with the short-term vagaries of weather, and ignore regional variation in climate change impacts.

New research, however, goes further, showing that global warming has actually contributed to Europe's winter blues.

Rising temperatures in the Arctic -- increasing at two to three times the global average -- have peeled back the region's floating ice cover by 20 percent over the last three decades.

This has allowed more of the Sun's radiative force to be absorbed by dark-blue sea rather than bounced back into space by reflective ice and snow, accelerating the warming process.

More critically for weather patterns, it has also created a massive source of heat during the winter months.

"Say the ocean is at zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

"That is a lot warmer than the overlying air in the polar area in winter, so you get a major heat flow heating up the atmosphere from below which you don't have when it is covered by ice. That's a massive change," he told AFP in an interview.

The result, according to a modelling study published earlier this month the Journal of Geophysical Research, is a strong high-pressure system over the newly-exposed sea which brings cold polar air, swirling counter-clockwise, into Europe.

Swans swim in Saint James' Park's lake in central London on December 18. Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Institute.

"These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and north Asia," he said.

The researchers created a computer model simulating the impact on weather patterns of a gradual reduction of winter ice cover in the Barents-Kara Sea, north of Scandinavia.

He also points out that during the freezing 2005-2006 winter, when temperatures averaged 10 C below normal in Siberia, there were no unusual variations in the north Atlantic oscillation, another putative cause.

Colder European winters do not indicate a slowing of global warming trends, only an uneven distribution, researchers say.

"As I look out my window is see about 30 centimetres of snow and the thermostat reads -14.0 C," said Rahmstorf, speaking by phone from Potsdam.

"At the same time, in Greenland we have above zero temperatures -- in December."

The memory of last winter's blizzards may be fading in this summer's searing heat, but scientists studying them have detected a perfect storm of converging weather patterns that had little relation to climate ...

A link between low solar activity and jet streams over the Atlantic could explain why, despite global warming trends, people in regions North East of the Atlantic Ocean might need to brace themselves for more ...

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that ...

Recommended for you

An analysis of buildings tagged red and yellow by structural engineers after the August 2014 earthquake in Napa links pre-1950 buildings and the underlying sedimentary basin to the greatest shaking damage, ...

As everyone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area knows, the Earth moves under our feet. But what about the stresses that cause earthquakes? How much is known about them? Until now, our understanding of ...

(Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with the Indian Institute of Science has found, via computer simulation, that deforestation in one part of the world can impact rainfall patterns in another. In their paper ...

It's no surprise that Arctic sea ice is thinning. What is new is just how long, how steadily, and how much it has declined. University of Washington researchers compiled modern and historic measurements to ...

Reasearchers at the University of Cadiz have carried out a study that establishes the atmospheric conditions responsible for the generation of extreme meteorological events in the Gulf of Cadiz, which can ...

User comments : 208

I have heard people comment on the cold weather as proof that global warming is a hoax/joke. As someone from the UK who now lives in the USA I only have to look at a map to realize that my old home would be in the middle of the Hudson bay if it was on this side of the Atlantic. Europe is much warmer than it should be because of it's position on the east side of the Atlantic where flows of both air and water transport heat from warmer parts of the world. Any disruption of those patterns will lead to a change in Europe's climate. Hotter summers and colder winters are a direct consequence for Europe of a warming arctic.

A thought-provoking observation - I've noted that Tasmania is about as close to the South Pole as Minnesota, USA is to the North Pole, yet Tasmania is much warmer in their winter than Minnesota is. So your observation is cogent. Wind and ocean currents have as much or more to do with how warm or cold a region is than any theoretical warming or cooling predicted by models or simple geographical location.

It is unfortunate how people fail to pay attention to history. Mini-Ice Ages. Ice Ages. They've all been around and will come again. Some were here recently. They were prior to the Global Warming Fad. Please go back to History 101 and Paleohistory 101.

I've been preaching the same message, but saying things like that will get you a lot of "1"s with this crowd as there are a lot of sheeple willing to believe the fearmongering, regardless of the known limitations of our technology. I think everyone can agree that climate change is real, even high school dropouts were told at some point there was an ice age; there is even a Disney movie about it (sort of). The point is, there is no excuse for anyone disbelieving in climate change, nor is there any valid argument against humans/industry adding to the problem. Skeptic_Heretic put it best though.

It is unfortunate how people fail to pay attention to history. Mini-Ice Ages. Ice Ages. They've all been around and will come again. Some were here recently. They were prior to the Global Warming Fad. Please go back to History 101 and Paleohistory 101.

And that proves that global warming isn't real? Just because it has happened in the past IN NO WAY proves that is the cause now.

If rains cause a river to overflow every year and a dam breaks, you would deny the existence of the dam and say it was the rain even though scientists tell you it didn't rain.

Unless you are a luddite and too stupid to know that when the majority of scientists agree on something, they are probably right. And that's even if you are too ignorant to understand the quantity of change to the atmosphere that the bilions of tons of various greenhouse gases cause. It never ceases to amaze me that people can be told that we are dumping billions of tons into the air and they think it just disappears.

It is unfortunate how people fail to pay attention to history. Mini-Ice Ages. Ice Ages. They've all been around and will come again. Some were here recently. They were prior to the Global Warming Fad. Please go back to History 101 and Paleohistory 101.

The theory is not falsifiable, as it should be, and it doesn't make accurate predictions about the future climate.

It is falsifiable, just not simply so. The models and predictions are far more complicated than single numbers, so a single number cannot disprove them. The models don't say everywhere will get hotter by exactly 1.3 degrees, they have full-world simulations that can be compared with real world measurements. Each individual prediction can be falsified by observation, its just that so few of them are.

Also, we don't know if the predictions about future climate are accurate yet. We do know that the models accurately 'predict' the last 130 years of climate to a resolution of about a decade.

Actually, if you ask 97% of climate scientists, they're pretty certain that CO2 generated by man made activities is causing the warming, but what do they know?

Yeah but there are multiple feedback loops that still aren't properly explored. We could be artificially cooling the planet in response to excess warming with our other pollutants. It may be more land use change than co2, etc. There are still a few irregularities to weigh out.

Some of our instrument sets are not at the level of high significance yet. In about 2 years I should be able to say definitively that the earth is warming and we are definitely the cause(which all data points to right now), but we need that last touch of data to finish it off and be able to say, "yes, now there really is no debate".

But not the MWP, which has been reported to be even 'warmer' than now.

Already explained to you about 400 times now, run along and read a book on it.

"A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.

Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature."

But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.

I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.""anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith."http://www.drroys...isition-

What a bunch of BS. First it was we were going to burn up if we did not stop global warming,now It's going to freeze us if we dont stop global warming.I think all of these fools should be lined up against a wall and shot. I do believe in shooting the messenger when they lie and spread their false words just to collect more more money for more studies.

"they say Earth’s orbit will continue to change today and into the future.""“Today, that closest approach is in January. So, summertime in the north was warmer back then than it is now.” "http://www.physor...firstCmt

Of course, it is ALL caused by global warming!

"the effects of global warming—particularly the oceans—could cause a change in the Earth's axial tilt"

Does anyone remember climategate? Download the leaked emails from eastt Angliaa and see their methods of faking the consensus. Witness their dismay at their computer models all being wrong. The earth is now cooling globally. Sorry no global tax guys!

"The majority of scientists...." eventually become a minority of scientists when politics are purged from the area of study. If that weren't true the Earth would still be flat or the Sun would be orbiting us.

Well there's a reason why the theory was modified after the Fourth IPCC report. It was found that observations and instrumentational records showed that the inputs of global warming models didn't produce a steady rise, they changed the energy input to the system, which cannot adjust quickly. So we'll have swings of heat and cold like we've seen. If the Theory is accurate, we should see more drastic swings over shorter timeperiods, then it'll eventually reach a new equilibrium and return to a more stable oscillation. We don't know where that stable point wouold be, or how fast the swings would get wild, but the models are making more reasonable near term predictions as they're tuned for new information.

Right. As we discussed last Spring, their predictions simply weren't supported by observation.

Some were, some weren't.

If it had been a physics hypothesis, they'd have already admitted it was falsified.

No, they would have seen if the thoery was falsified or if it needed adjustment. The initial condition statement of the theory and multiple sub scopes remained relevant in the re-write otherwise it would be false.

But no, they get to claim there wasn't enough data,

No, deniers claimed that, and in some instances they were correct. That won't be the case for much longer unless we discover something really wacky.

Well, I'm still waiting for the promised dry California winters they insist are coming...

Go ahead and show us that prediction and make sure there's no controversial secondary finding involved.

OK let's go back 10 years and see what the 2020 forecast was by GW advocates. We're 1/2 way there - are the predictions there? Specifically - what was the expected sea level rise by 2020 - should be 1/2 way there by now. Whoops. Any other predicitons?

OK let's go back 10 years and see what the 2020 forecast was by GW advocates. We're 1/2 way there - are the predictions there? Specifically - what was the expected sea level rise by 2020 - should be 1/2 way there by now. Whoops. Any other predicitons?

The prediction in 2000 was an increase from 2.0mm to 3mm per year with a margin of error of plus or minus .2mm.

Last record was a perceived sea level increase of 2.8mm per year according to 2009 and 2010 satellite measurements.

Do you feel like an asshole for being blatantly wrong and picking the one prediction set that was almost a perfect representation of observation?

Secondary finding? You mean like where they hedge their bets and say things like, "We predict dryer weather in the Southwest, except unless it doesn't happen."

No, how about one that says "The west coast will see a reduction in precipitation, unless there is a rapid change in the PDO. Most denialists will cite the change and forget the PDO.

I stated rather explicitly that our knowledge was not complete and it is constantly under revision, and yes, that is science.

So go ahead and give em a prediction from 2000 that was blatantly wrong, and show me the dataset with it.

Stephen Chu quotes don't qualify as peer reviewed research. You've seen me call the man a moron repeatedly now. Are you going to stop bringing it up or should I start talking about how the majority of dissenting IPCC scientists now are in the AGCC camp since the post 4th report revision?

tk1 - "what is the ideal global temperature?"I am always amazed when people ask this question. I don't know what the ideal temp is but I'm just guessing it ain't one that could well lead to drought, famine, and massive dislocation.

Global warming isn't a theory, it's an observation looking for a theory that explains it. Has man caused it? Putting all that CO2 is unlikely to be helpful. We need to switch our primary fuel source because of scarcity not weather. So let's quit arguing about the weather and get to work.

Bottom line: - We've had about seven ice ages, of widely varying length, in about the last 700,000 years. - The current time is one of the always brief (about 10,000 year long) respites from ice age - We are about 10,000 years into this warm spell- The warm spells between ice ages have all been relatively brief, about 10,000 years- 80% of this warm spell has been warmer than today- It was warmer 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 years ago.- The ARGO system of 3,000 sea bouys shows ocean temperatures are declining slightly for the last 7 years.

We would be lucky to be able to cause global warming, so we can (eventually) counteract the next ice age.

AGW advocates have not covered themselves in glory by their refusal to debate, respect their opponents, share data, admit possible alternate explanations, preserve data, or comply with public records law.

Bottom line: - We've had about seven ice ages, of widely varying length, in about the last 700,000 years.

And how about the other 4,499,300,000 years before that?

With no knowledge of the factors that affect climate, you are not skilled enough to make statements on what it will be.

If you're illiterate, you can't just pick up war and peace and be reading by sun down. It requires information and understanding to begin to postulate a prediction of climate. Ignoring experts is ridiculous. Questioning experts is not.

Aw geeze, this again? Talk to me in 100 years when you don't have one group of scientists saying one thing and another saying another, all without any concrete models to go on. "Oh its hot! Global Warming! Oh its cold! Global Warming! Oh its nice outside! See, its because we warned you and you gave us, errr, spent tons of money!"

Bottom line: - We've had about seven ice ages, of widely varying length, in about the last 700,000 years.

And how about the other 4,499,300,000 years before that?

With no knowledge of the factors that affect climate, you are not skilled enough to make statements on what it will be.

If you're illiterate, you can't just pick up war and peace and be reading by sun down. It requires information and understanding to begin to postulate a prediction of climate. Ignoring experts is ridiculous. Questioning experts is not.

How are there any experts if, by your own words, we have no data on the previous 4,499,300,000 years?

And if "It requires information and understanding to begin to postulate a prediction of climate." how again are there any experts around to "postulate a prediction of climate."

Or do the experts HAVE information on the previous 4 million years? If so, why are they not sharing that data?

What a pathetic piece of misinformation and a sad crowd of lame brain followers of global warming. Are most of you really so stupid that you do not dare to believe your own lying eyes and freezeinf asses that cold is cold. And global warming is a hoax-

How are there any experts if, by your own words, we have no data on the previous 4,499,300,000 years?

Are you advocating that people with no understanding of climate whatsoever ignore people who do know something about it? Knowledge and science are a collaborative endeavor. You cannot lone wolf it and get accurate results as you gents suggest above.

And if "It requires information and understanding to begin to postulate a prediction of climate." how again are there any experts around to "postulate a prediction of climate."

Through many generations of study, we now have a body of knowledge that can be studied to make one an expert.

Or do the experts HAVE information on the previous 4 million years? If so, why are they not sharing that data?

They have quite a bit, ask them for it and they'll give it to you. Do you think you'll be able to interpret it better than they?

Careful everyone who think the science for AGW is full of holes. Please dont contradict Progressive beliefs with facts otherwise SH might need to track you down to re-educate you if he cant shut you up or shout you down on this board.

Since this may be my last post of the year. I want to wish everyone, including and especially SH and Otto , a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. May Peace, Love, Joy, Knowledge, and Wisdom increase for everyone.

tk1 - "what is the ideal global temperature?"I am always amazed when people ask this question. I don't know what the ideal temp is but I'm just guessing it ain't one that could well lead to drought, famine, and massive dislocation.

It's a legetimate question when you have do gooder pin heads trying to make us change our lifes for what ever reason drives them. They defined the problem they should define what the ideal global temperature is.

But I suppose some folks would prefer longer winters, shorter growing seasons, & FAMINE, as was the case in the mini ice age. This was also the predictions of the global alarmest in the 80's when they said the next ice age was around the corner.

Careful everyone who think the science for AGW is full of holes. Please dont contradict Progressive beliefs with facts otherwise SH might need to track you down to re-educate you if he cant shut you up or shout you down on this board.

Simply because you're unable to create a cogent sentence doesn't mean that I'll treat the other posters of this board in a manner akin to how I treat you. I deal with people on an individual basis, unlike you who prefers to paint everyone he disagrees with as "progressive".

Since this may be my last post of the year. I want to wish everyone, including and especially SH and Otto , a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. May Peace, Love, Joy, Knowledge, and Wisdom increase for everyone.

Much appreciated. I hope you and yours are well through this season of celebration.

OK, I am going to use some "science" here so those of you who don't want to read it can just skip this post. First, I want to point out that the cooling of a region at a specific time is weather. That does not mean that climate change does not also change weather, in fact it does, just on in a monotonic way.

So, lets assume that the arctic air is pushing down into parts of Russia and Europe right now. Let me ask a simple question. Where do you think it is coming from? Since we should be aware of conservation of mass, if a mass of cold air is coming down out of the arctic that means that warm air is pushing up into the arctic.

Don't get upset yet, this happens all the time when there are density gradients in the air the air flows.

However, if cold air is flowing out of the arctic, something is coming in from somewhere else to make up for it or we would create a vacuum in the north (which will not happen). (Continued)

Continued: These are weather patterns. They have happened since the earth was created. However, the theory of AGCC indicates that the gradients will increase in slope and more winds will move the arctic air around. That tends to cause cold WEATHER in sections of the north and warm WEATHER in other sections. A good place to look for things like this is the arctic ice. It is sensitive to both wind and temperature. One would think that if cold air is flowing strongly into parts of the northern continents then the ice would have problems growing. Again, this is weather. The trend should change over time as climate is changing. Take a look at arctic ice as Europe and Russia are freezing:

Wow - for just about as long as the cold weather has been going on the ice growth has slowed. Hmmmm.... Is that just a fluke? Go back a few years and compare local weather with the ice growth. That is weather at work. Continued

Continued: I heard some numb skull on here talk about the arctic getting colder. Try again meat-head. Read the data at the site above and go back a few years. Are we cooling? No, we are heating. Do you folks that deny this just not know how to read graphs or use statistics? Are you all high-school graduates with no advanced science?

The simple idea is perform a mass balance. If dense cold air is flowing out, warmer (not warm in the arctic - but warmer) air is flowing in.

Don't fret. Things will change and the arctic temperature will drop (because of the lack of sunlight) and the ice will increase. The colder air can continue to flow down toward the equator and the lighter air will flow into the space left. It is weather but if you are capable of following the statistics, the weather is changing due to climate change. Now, if you will be so kind as to show me why the concept of a mass balance is wrong I will greatly appreciate it.

No, how about one that says "The west coast will see a reduction in precipitation, unless there is a rapid change in the PDO. Most denialists will cite the change and forget the PDO.

Oscilation schmoscilation. Here's a "Climate Progress" article which supports Chu and is full of extravagant and dire warnings about desertification of the Southwest. And, it links to multiple additional articles with similar doom and gloom prognostications:

Typo warning on my continued posts above. I had said: "That does not mean that climate change does not also change weather, in fact it does, just on in a monotonic way." What I should have said in the last part is: "just not in a monotonic way." Clearly, we do not expect a constant march in a given direction and there will be oscillations. Hence the substitution of "not" for "on."

I stated rather explicitly that our knowledge was not complete and it is constantly under revision, and yes, that is science.

So go ahead and give em a prediction from 2000 that was blatantly wrong, and show me the dataset with it.

I just showed you some from 20009 and 2007, all clearly wrong.

First, a paper from 3 years ago that makes predictions for 2050 is not falsifiable at this time. There's a specific reason why I told you to pick a paper from 2000 that makes predictions as the vast majority make predictions for this year that has just now passed.

You also decided to focus on Stephen Chu, WHO I SPECIFICALLY SAID IS A MORON. Secondly, none of his editorials are peer reviewed predictive papers, they are articles.

If you're not even going to try, just go away. This is almost as bad as when you linked those webcam pictures of the Sierra snowpack showing no snow and claimed it was snow covered in June.

The ironic thing about this is that whenever the "weather" is warmer than normal, it is used as evidence of climate warming. Yet when skeptics point to colder weather as evidence against climate warming, it is dismissed as being just "weather."

Merry Christmas to all the morons! Do not forget the imbeciles and idiots in the Happy New Year. Anyone who thinks that he knows exactly what is going to happen in the future is wasting time arguing with those who exactly know a different path. Prognosticators get thee to the stock market.Religious fanatics, prevaricators and delusional psychos keep telling me what is going to happen...Crazier than MuhamMad and his fratricidal children; or a virgin birth of the deity. But I still like Christmas, for the hope, not the folly and futility of the insect contemplating the meaning of the descending foot.

First, a paper from 3 years ago that makes predictions for 2050 is not falsifiable at this time. There's a specific reason why I told you to pick a paper from 2000 that makes predictions as the vast majority make predictions for this year that has just now passed.

If you want me to see something specific, provide a link.

You also decided to focus on Stephen Chu, WHO I SPECIFICALLY SAID IS A MORON. Secondly, none of his editorials are peer reviewed predictive papers, they are articles.

Did you not even LOOK at the links I provided?

Are you a chatbot? I've noticed chatbots are unable to utilize the embedded links. Are you having trouble with the links?

"This global warming theory is not a scientific theory as you can't disprove it." - DingoTard

Which of course is a lie.

Showing that the global surface temperature is falling over a period of decades would constitute disproof, as would showing that CO2 does absorb IR. It could also be disproved by showing that the oceans are cooling, or that atmospheric CO2 levels are falling, or that oceans are not acidifying due to an enhancement in their absorption of CO2.

"They defined the problem they should define what the ideal global temperature is." - Conservatard

The ideal global temperature is the average temperature at which the current biosphere has evolved. Given that Biologists estimate that as a result of the ongoing warming, 30 percent or more of the species on this planet will go extinct, we can safely assume that current trends are not toward the optimum.

Even a ConservaTard traitor should have enough brain cells to comprehend that.

I do not have any sock puppet accounts, nor have I ever made any attempt to make one. The times I have been suspended, I've never tried to brink the suspension.

So you guys just make yourself look silly accusing someone of being a sock puppet.

Vendicar:

How can you take any 13 billion years seriously in cosmology, when the scientists themselves allow changes in the laws of physcis to try to make their theory work, because it doesn't work, so they change the rules...i.e. "the inflation period," etc.

If the laws of physics could change 13 billion years ago and you don't laugh at that, then how can you prove they didn't change a fw thousand or a few million years ago?

If we apply the same logic you people try to use any other time, then the inflationary period hypothesis is not falsifiable, and is therefore not "scientific."

The laws of physics could change any number of times, and you couldn't ever prove it nor falsify it...

"If the laws of physics could change 13 billion years ago and you don't laugh at that, then how can you prove they didn't change a fw thousand or a few million years ago?" - ConservaTard

If there were any grand changes in the laws of physics, then there would be grand discontinuities in the observational record of past events.

Since there isn't any evidence of such discontinuities in the observational record, it is up to you to tell us what those changes were and how they have been conveniently masked or undone by other magical or mystical events.

I understand that miracles are still common on Planet ConservaTard, and there the universe is only 6,000 years old.

"Of course there is all that pesky 'dark matter' that is needed to make the laws work...." - Flatch

While some form of "dark matter" is needed to account for gravity at great distances, there is no evidence that this requirement changes over time. And certainly none that require a change several thousand years ago.

And while there are theoretical arguments that this "dark matter" is not composed of baryons, existing physics is so capable of providing a host of possible sources for that "matter".

Now... Which laws of physics do you claim have changed over the last thousands of years or even longer.

where e_0 is the permitivity of free space which changes with spatial energy density.

Further the observations you refer to ae insufficient to show any statistically significant change in alpha, but they do show a significant correlation with the relative orientation of the telescopes used to make the observations.

As it stands there is no evidence of a change in alpha over time or space.

where e_0 is the permitivity of free space which changes with spatial energy density.

Further the observations you refer to ae insufficient to show any statistically significant change in alpha, but they do show a significant correlation with the relative orientation of the telescopes used to make the observations.

As it stands there is no evidence of a change in alpha over time or space.

"Now, Webb and colleagues have analysed 153 additional quasars in the southern sky using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile and have made an even more startling discovery. They found that in the southern sky, &#945; was about one part in 100,000 larger 10 billion years ago than it is today. The value in the northern sky was still smaller, as found before. ""This spatial variation in &#945; is further evidence that the electromagnetic interaction violates Einstein's equivalence principle – one of the cornerstones of relativity that says that &#945; must be the same wherever and whenever it is measured. Such a violation is good news for those seeking unification because many leading theories also go against the equivalence principle. "http://physicswor...ws/43657

Excellent. Now go put a bullet in your worthless brain and save the world the burden of maintaining your worthless life.

So like a leftling. Someone does not agree to your belief system, well, off with their head, like those 100 million other poor b*st*rds leftism starved, beat, shot or worked to death for the ThoughtCrime of not believing in the Workers' Paradise in the last 93 years.

Although SH does not, as far as I can tell from all his comments, wish death on anyone. He just screams homophobic slurs at them.

California vineyards are slowly going by(sic) by(sic) as the temperature rises and water stress in the region increases.

Then they'll have to grow wine grapes in the UK, as they did in the MWP that Vidiculous says was only localized. (Although one of his heroes, Phil Jones, has admitted that there are not enough paleoclimatic records from the tropics and the Southern hemisphere to prove it one way or another).

And here's just one article about the so-called supposed local nature of the Medieval Warm Period, which links to a study that shows that the Inca empire rose due to the same MWP. Since the Incas were in Peru, not in Greenland or Europe, well, oops, for the localized BS.http://wattsupwit...hu-inca/

But we know that this is not possible, as Mann "proved" by deliberately exorcising the MWP from his thoroughly discredited "hockey stick".

But if you don't believe the leftists, they want you to DIE, or suck d*ck, or something.

You cannot "prove" or "disprove" a change in the laws of physics by experimentation, because if the laws have changed you can neither predict nor post-dict exactly what happened prior to the change, nor replicate whatever happened prior to the change.

Assuming the laws have not changed is just as irrational as any other assumption you could make.

Here is a very simple proof that you can't prove or disprove a change in the laws of physics.

Suppose we have a curve on a graph, and this represents the universe. The relation(s) and function(s) that produced teh curve represents the laws. Now let's say I give one copy of the curve to an independent observer, and I give you a copy, except you only get one small segment of the curve, like 10 units long. They got teh whole thing, you got a segment from X = a to X = b.

Now, unfortunately you cannot predict what prior(lower x) or future (higher x) segments will look like, because you cannot prove the function isn't piecewise defined (change in the rules). Moreover, no matter how long your segment of the curve is, you still have the same dilemna, in that you cannot make the assumption that the same function is followed indefinitely in all directions.

If laws of physics have changed, there will be no evidence of it, because infinite regression cannot detect a change in the laws.

Now sticking with the same line segment example, the independent witness has the entire curve from -infinitty to +infinity representig entire universe for all time, but you have a line segment representing the universe now, and you try to predict past or future.

Now let say you have segment from x=1 to x=2, and morevover you are very clever, and notice the curve is y = x^2.

Now you might try to regress this back to when X = 0, and say, "well, when X = 0, then Y = 0," but that is a fallacy, because suppose the real curve is piecewise defined(laws changed at X=1,) then Y could be anything at all when X = 0.

You can't make a rational guess, because the assumption that the laws have never changed is clearly a fallacy. For all you know, the function might be defined as Y = 1 for the interval of X = 0 to 1, or much of anything else, and your extrapolation back to 0 would be wrong.

There really is no rational, logical, mathematical basis for assumption of laws being constant.

So if you are like, "I'll run the universe backwards in a model and look for anything weird that looks like a change in the laws."

It's not going to work. The reason is because when you do that, you are running the universe backwards with the existing laws, and the existing laws are going to do exactly what you would expect them to do in reverse...even to the point of "post-dicting" events that never happened, even though they might look like they happened, but are being misunderstood because the laws were different. Remember, in the line segment example, the curve X= 0 to X = 1 is not on Y = X^2, even though regression might "post-dict" it to be there. On our independent witnesses curve, it does not follow X^2, on that interval, but some other function. If you do the regression of the laws, you will find an illusion of X^2 from 0 to 1, but it is only an illusion. The independent witness can see the actual curve doesn't follow that regression.

What interests me is something related, and that is the redefinition of physical laws. For example the extension of the concept of momentum to massless entities, or the redefinition of temperature from that measured by the expansion of a liquid to a statistical definition involving the rates of change of entropy and energy.

One has to be very careful with such redefinitions because they open the definition to describing unreal properties in extreme situations. Things like negative absolute temperature, negative masses, etc.

"There really is no rational, logical, mathematical basis for assumption of laws being constant." - QC

So far we have had remarkable success with the presumption that they are constant, although this working principle is not trusted on small scales of length and high energies.

When energy goes missing in high energy reactions, we are so convinced of the reality of the law of conservation of energy that we automatically presume that it left in the form of some undetected particle, rather than just presuming that it vanished.

If the permitivity of free space, Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, the speed of light or pi varies, then alpha can change.

The permitivity of free space changes based on energy density, are you trying to refer to vaccuum permitivity? That's a concept that is continually being revised as we determine more about quantum mechanics and dark energy.

That's a concept that is continually being revised as we determine more about quantum mechanics and dark energy.

"Although it was astrophysical observations of the acceleration that led to the discovery of dark energy, there are precious few tests that can be performed to work out what dark energy is "" Our knowledge of the cosmos is still very primitive, and much of our thinking about it correspondingly speculative, more along the lines of what might plausibly have been than what is so. "http://sciencewee...12-1.htm

"Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false.""the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. ""No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.""This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. "http://www.invest...&p=2

Do stop demeaning the developmentally disabled. "Tard," "retard," and other derogatory terms that belittle those who can't defend themselves are unfair. The conservatives who deny science could be called ignorant, pathetic, or just poorly informed, but leave those who cannot defend themselves out of it.

Showing that the global surface temperature is falling over a period of decades would constitute disproof, as would showing that CO2 does absorb IR. It could also be disproved by showing that the oceans are cooling, or that atmospheric CO2 levels are falling, or that oceans are not acidifying due to an enhancement in their absorption of CO2.

You only have to understand the world as a great heat/evaporative cooling engine to understand why if you apply more heat you would have more extreme cooling. With more heat you get more evaporation and with more evaporation you get more precipitation and more cooling. It is logical that early signs of global warming will be greater weather extremes in both hot and cold periods - as this heat engine responds to the changing dynamics of greater energy inputs as it tries compensate.

What people aren't getting are the implications for these more dramatic climate swings - on human food production. More extremes means shorter growing seasons - earlier and expanding warm seasons droughts followed by earlier frost and later spring thaws. The changes of seasons will necessarily be more rapid - bringing greater differentials in temperatures. Greater temperature differentials mean more violent weather like tornadoes, hurricanes and early blizzards - not unlike the current one.

What people aren't getting are the implications for these more dramatic climate swings - on human food production. More extremes means shorter growing seasons - earlier and expanding warm seasons droughts followed by earlier frost and later spring thaws. The changes of seasons will necessarily be more rapid

So what now? The earth is going orbit the sun faster? Just what do you think causes seasons?

- bringing greater differentials in temperatures. Greater temperature differentials mean more violent weather like tornadoes, hurricanes and early blizzards - not unlike the current one.

So what happened to the predictions of catastrophioc drought?

Oh, since that hasn't been occuring, and the earth is actually greening, now there's a whole new set of dire consequences to be worried about?

You're merely talking about weather, which has always seen extremes. To suggest weather should be viewed with such anxiety and panic, is emotional terrorism.

temperature steadily rises, possibly by as much as five or six degrees Celsius

steadily? 5-6? That's not what I've read from NOAA, NCDC or IPCC. That's the first example of an editorial error in this article.

Climate sceptics who question the gravity of global warming or that humans are to blame point to the deep chills as confirmation of their doubts

Really? I didn't know that was my reasoning. I'm glad they told me that. I thought it was because of several other things that make a lot more sense. That's the second example of an editorial error in this article.

Such assertions, counter scientists, mistakenly conflate the long-term patterns of climate with the short-term vagaries of weather

and

Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it

Okay, so weather can support AGW, but it can't debunk AGW? Did a 3rd Grader write this article?

Using weather again? I thought they said it's wrong to confuse weather with climate.

Colder European winters do not indicate a slowing of global warming trends, only an uneven distribution

Oh okay, so it's not 'steadily increasing' as they said up at the top? And here's another place where they point to weather and confuse it with climate. Shame on them!

According to official sources I have read, they aren't sure what the effect of the ENSO cycle is at this point. It's absolutely sure to have an effect, but because of multiple overlapping effects, it's nearly impossible to blame one thing or another. I think these guys pretend to be more sure than they should be. They don't even mention ENSO. It's kinda a big deal.

Oh thanks Skeptic, since the clowns that wrote the original article were obviously wrong about my motives for questioning AGW, I'm glad you are able to clear it up for me. If you want to know what got me started, go watch "An Inconvienient Truth" and make a mark on a sheet of paper each time they say something stupid. As a matter of fact, do that with this article.

If anybody marks this comment less than 5/5, then I challenge you to prove that my anti-AGW opinion came from some other source. I assure you that I didn't give a darn either way until I saw that movie.

Oh thanks Skeptic, since the clowns that wrote the original article were obviously wrong about my motives for questioning AGW, I'm glad you are able to clear it up for me. If you want to know what got me started, go watch "An Inconvienient Truth" and make a mark on a sheet of paper each time they say something stupid. As a matter of fact, do that with this article.

I wouldn't call you a denialist. I'd say you're skeptical and haven't been convinced either way.

Yes, Al Gore is the biggest moron alive, and yes, many "science journalists" don't know much about science, (as physorg shows us quite often they may not know much about journalism either). You understand the basics. You are intellectually curious. Do you think the average person railing against any article that speaks of weather for or against AGCC is like you? I don't.

Watch that vid and ask yourself how many of your talking points against the theory are based on the work of Seitz.

Oh thanks Skeptic, since the clowns that wrote the original article were obviously wrong about my motives for questioning AGW, I'm glad you are able to clear it up for me. If you want to know what got me started, go watch "An Inconvienient Truth" and make a mark on a sheet of paper each time they say something stupid. As a matter of fact, do that with this article.

If anybody marks this comment less than 5/5, then I challenge you to prove that my anti-AGW opinion came from some other source. I assure you that I didn't give a darn either way until I saw that movie.

I was concerned, until I saw that movie! That's when I realized how implausible, inaccurate, and hysterically hyped it all was.

What an embarassment to science.

Even if GW is real, it's not the impending disaster it's painted to be. In fact, it might generally be a good thing.

He does sound somewhat like me in some ways, but there are even more questions now than there were when he died. I'm sure glad our millitary went the way he thought it should, rather then the way his opponents (the university/science mainstream) wanted it to. One thing he said, which I have no way of confirming or denying, is that he knew scientists who told him that they feared they would lose funding if they came out against AGW. The only prominent person I know of who's publicly changed sides recently is that former head of NASA. Like you said. I question everything, sometimes I even question an article that has nothing to do with AGW. Imagine that!!!

I'll have to watch the vid when I get home. I can't do utube at work. Is it anything like this interview from PBS?

No, it actually has an in depth breakdown of the entire Seitz ordeal. I learned a lot of things I didn't know from this profile of Seitz. I think it's information that the majority of people are completely unaware of which hasn't been covered by media. The reason I like this particular vid is he goes in depth in his sourcing. It's very well done.

Well we could take the approach of Seitz denying common sense, cause & effect. He is playing a foolish hand with the consequences of AGW. It's even more confusing when lay-people hear scientist argue and the debate is dragged into political theater.

Personally I liked Al-Gores movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". A movie on AGW issue was timely, necessary, and and a wakeup call to millions of the consequence of our modern industrial society. Al Gore is no scientist, but I think he did do a good job arguing the science at the time. Everything he said at the time of that movie, appears to me to be coming true. Extreme weather, bigger storms, longer summers, droughts, floods; Super Blizards. That is just my layperson observation.

I'll admit I have a my science background. When 97% of climate scientists develop a consensus via hundreds of computer models that all predicts, a 10C warming in "Global" average temperatures by a specific time frames, that are not 10000's of year, but 100's. I get concerned. Sure the models can be complicated, and the direct observations are very interwoven with cause and effect. But the bottom line is this; if CO2 is locked it into something that can be manageable longterm in a global cooperative of nation states, our posterity will not have to suffer summer months of 140F highs, food- water shortages, sea level rise. We won't have to be survivalists like some want us to be.

"So what now? The earth is going orbit the sun faster?" - Tard of Tards

The person you are referring to is clearly stating that temperature extremes will, due to increased weather variability, reduce the time available for growing crops.

He is right.

The biosphere is optimized for the temperature regime of 100 years ago, and as the climate diverges from that regime, the biosphere will be less well suited and the result is a reduction of biological productivity.

The person you are referring to is clearly stating that temperature extremes will, due to increased weather variability, reduce the time available for growing crops.

He is right.

The biosphere is optimized for the temperature regime of 100 years ago, and as the climate diverges from that regime, the biosphere will be less well suited and the result is a reduction of biological productivity.

This is only unfathomable rocket science to a Tard of Tards.

You obviously have some communications issues. Any relation to Otto1923?

It is obvious that the one that says this....must be the idiot of the year!!!! heheheheheheThese are the same people who screamed Freon gas kills the Ozone=utter shite. Same scam as Peak Oil absolute shite.

No matter what happens, prove warming... just as Lysenko always proved what?

Pathetic. As would be abundantly clear from the adjective global in global warming, there is no implication that the temperature will monotonically increase in any particular place you care to measure.

2010 is a close contender for the hottest year in the instrumental record; we'll know for sure in a week or so.

I'm not making any claims about winter storms or heat waves, but the article above is. As I pointed out, they first say that it's wrong to point to regional weather in relation to climate change, then the article does exactly that, three times. I quoted the examples above. It's a poorly written article, that attempts to scare people into supporting AGW theory and mostly expresses editorial opinion rather than good climate science.

A thought-provoking observation - I've noted that Tasmania is about as close to the South Pole as Minnesota, USA is to the North Pole, yet Tasmania is much warmer in their winter than Minnesota is. So your observation is cogent. Wind and ocean currents have as much or more to do with how warm or cold a region is than any theoretical warming or cooling predicted by models or simple geographical location.

Good point but Mt Wellington (elevation 1270 metres) had some light snow fall a few days ago and it is meant to be summer!

I know it does no good to try to actually stick a little science into these discussions, but let me try once again.

First: Does anyone on either side of this debate fail to recall that one of the predictions of climate change is extreme weather events?

Second: Does anyone on this blog understand what happens when you make changes to the momentum of a flowing fluid? Here is a hint - the Reynolds number is involved.

Third: The earth is heating and has been heating since the mini-ice age. It had been heating before that from the last glacial period. Does anyone disagree with that statement? Along with this third statement - the only significant influence humans could have had until about 150 years ago was in land use, not combustion of fuels. Are we on the same page?

I think that most people (except maybe Marjon) would agree that there is a significant natural component to the ongoing global warming and it has been going on for about 1000 years at a slow pace.

The question that comes up when we see major weather events is: Are they related to some component injected by humans (specifically CO2). If the signal of warming has fluctuated significantly over the past 10,000 years as ice cores, corals, forests, tundra,... seem to indicate, then the issue becomes separating the signal from CO2 from all of the other natural causes.

As I see it, there is no way to attach a specific weather event to AGCC. However, as the years of data pile up there is a better signal/noise ratio and the predicted extreme weather events can be one of the many indicators that can falsify or not AGCC.

Continued: The reason I don't like this article is that it appears to be using short-term weather events to validate AGCC. In the article they say:

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it,"

I would have stopped this sentence at "picture" and not added the idea that these weather events supplement the concept.

This goes back to my first point. The major weather events do not falsify AGCC. However, they do not prove it either.

My second point is that fluids move under the force of gravity caused by temperature gradients and can be turbulent or laminar. The large events tend toward laminar as the dimensions are large. However, the boundaries of the flow can become turbulent causing mixing of the fluids and "weather" anomalies.

Then the third point comes in. Can we tease out the signal from CO2 over the past 150 years from 10,000 years of warming and noise? Continued:

Continued: My view of the answer (and I am sure there are a lot of other views) is that we are getting closer to a better view of the signal. However, an article like this should be aimed at showing that extreme weather events do not falsify AGCC - and also, do not "supplement" AGCC. We need a lot more data to be able to tie extreme weather to AGCC - but, be clear, the extreme weather does not falsify AGCC.

The idea that AGCC cannot be falsified (and is therefore not science) has been brought up in this blog and is absolutely wrong. There are a number of pieces of AGCC that could be falsified. So far they have not been. However, extreme weather does not falsify it because it has been a key prediction. Those who use the extreme weather (cold in this case) to ridicule the concept have either no background in science or an agenda of their own.

The "extreme" weather we're currently experiencing is not outside of norms. I mean it's not like we're experiencing the continuous blizzards needed to rebuild the Laurentide ice sheet, nor the continuous drought and heat needed to melt it.

ubavontuba: You are absolutely right. We are not building ice sheets. We are actually melting them. At the same time we are setting historical records. The idea is that this is weather and not necessarily climate change. I thought I made that point above by saying they should not have said that these blizzards are "supplementing" AGCC. However, the point that you seem to have missed is that they are not falsifying AGCC either. Those far to the AGCC hysterical are claiming this proves AGCC. Those AGCC deniers say this disproves AGCC. The bottom line is that because of my first point a number of paragraphs up (which I should have made a statement instead of a question) since extreme weather events were predicted, that fact that we are having extreme weather events does not falsify AGCC. Nor, can it prove it correct with that single issue. Don't worry, the glaciers are not coming back to New York for quite a while.

The "extreme" weather we're currently experiencing is not outside of norms.

Many disagree. 100 year records show that precipitation events have increased in intensity and declined in longevity over the past 100 years very steadily. We're getting less snow and rain in some areas, and more intense snow and rain in others. These appear to be rather closely linked to the temperatures of the region within and the local climate dynamics when modeled as a steady system receiving a continuous increase in energy input.

AGCC is merely an explanation for said input and so far it is the only one that has not been falsified.

First: Does anyone on either side of this debate fail to recall that one of the predictions of climate change is extreme weather events?

If you read "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis", from the IPCC, you'll see that clouds and extreme weather events are not well simulated by climate models. Those factors are largely paramaterized rather than simulated. Ice sheet dynamics and the terrestrial carbon cycle are also paramaterized rather than simulated. Those are three of the biggest holes in the models to date. Extreme weather is better prdicted by watching the ENSO cycle and the NAO cycle rather than with computer models of climate. Only short time scale regional models used for weather forcasting have the resolution needed for storm prediction. In fact, the past 4 years have seen a sharp decline in total estimated tropical storm energy (i think it's called ACE?) globally. I'm sure you can look that up at NCDC.

Yeah, I know, but that's the latest IPCC assessment. You do realize that sometimes the older models are more accurate than the newest ones, don't you? After years of callibration, they tend to improve, while new ones tend to have quirky behavior for a while when they are first released.

I have links to the annual ACE index graphs, including data up to this month, but the site won't let me post them.

Also note that the red trend lines on the 41 year graph of storm frequency are both flat. The top line is for storms of tropical storm strength or greater, and the bottom line is for hurricane strength storms. You can keep claiming an increase in extreme weather events if you want, but that seems kinda stupid to me.

I have links to the annual ACE index graphs, including data up to this month, but the site won't let me post them.

SH doesn't know how to Google. He demanded I post links even though the site wouldn't allow it.Put the link in [ q ] .... [ / q ] quote symbols.If readers don't know how to cut and past that into their browser, they need to get off the 'net.

Thermo, as usual I agree with most of what you say, but this time I have to pull the emergency alarm bell because the basic premise of your entire series of comments is false. There has not been an increase in extreme weather event frequency or magnitude. For example, despite this being a near record high year for average daily temperatures, most places did not have very many record daily high temps. My region, for example, had zero record daily high temperatures in 2010. that's hardly extreme.

ryggesogn2: Skeptic is really good about looking stuff up and checking out references. I have no problem with his posting habits except that he occasionally sinks to the level of name-calling, which I despise.

A thought-provoking observation - I've noted that Tasmania is about as close to the South Pole as Minnesota, USA is to the North Pole, yet Tasmania is much warmer in their winter than Minnesota

That's because the southern hemisphere has a larger percentage of ocean than the northern hemisphere. Because of the tilt of the earth and the obliquity of our orbit around the sun, the southern hemisphere is pointed towards the sun at the same time that we are closest to the sun, and they are pointed away from the sun when the earth is farthest from the sun. That would lead you to expect southern summer to be very hot and southern winter to be very cold. However, due to the ability of ocean water to convect and store massive amounts of thermal energy, the southern hemisphere remains more constant than the north. Solid land, being solid, lacks the ability to convect and therefore only the surface will warm. Dig a hole in a desert and it's cool just a couple feet down.

The "extreme weather" predictied was along the lines of catastrophic drought punctuated by fierce hurricanes. Mid lattitude blizzards were NOT mentioned in this context.

No the predictions were an increase in dry weather in some regions, primarily australia, eastern europe, and western USA,(which is happening), culminating in widespread drought, and an increase in the severity of ACE activity, which when averaged is not happening at the rate predicted and doesn't show a statistically significant increase outside of regional variance. Blizzards are included in ACE activity.

The problem with the ACE severity argument is that it wasn't a prediction that was widespread. There were contrary predicitons of the opposite depending on the ability of the atmosphere to distribute pressure and temperature differentials.

Okay Skeptic, I finally read your utube link about Seitz. That characterization of him is quite different from the impression of him I got from the PBS interview. However, your vid link probably explains why I've never heard of the guy before. He obviously falls into the category of 'questionable character'. I prefer to use NOAA, NCDC, WMO, IPCC and the like as my sources, and I'm not sure if I was supposed to be offended by your comparrison of myself to Seitz. He WAS right about the IPCC methods of peer review though. Gotta give him credit for getting lucky on that one at least. lol.

The video you linked to is interesting in a few ways though. Did you look at any of the other videos from the guy that made the Seitz video? There's some real winners in there. Some of the things that guy says are about as factually accurate as the statements from Senator Inhofe or Al Gore.

The video you linked to is interesting in a few ways though. Did you look at any of the other videos from the guy that made the Seitz video? There's some real winners in there. Some of the things that guy says are about as factually accurate as the statements from Senator Inhofe or Al Gore.

Can you shoot me one in a PM that you think is inaccurate. The guy sources all of his material directly from vetted research and updates whenever there's a revision or new observation.

Watch that vid and ask yourself how many of your talking points against the theory are based on the work of Seitz

?

That's not a comparison. That's having people mound bullshit in front of you until you can't see the guy mounding the bullshit any longer. My question is intended to say "How many of the subsequent articles and statements on AGCC that you've read in the media appear to be based on Seitz memos, letter, and "petitions".

"The Australian drought is considered by scientists to be a natural phenomenon and not caused by so-called climate change. Long periods of dryness are a historical, recurring, natural part of the Australian climate. Households currently are asked to be frugal with water but most are not aware that water is diverted to support agricultural industries that are uneconomic and pollitically sensitive, such as sugar, rice and cotton."

Sorry Marjon, your source is impeachable. The man's bio shows rather unequivocally that he hasn't been in the research field for over 2 decades. http:/www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/hschlanger

The Australian drought is considered by scientists to be a natural phenomenon and not caused by so-called climate change.

Sorry, this is quite incorrect. http:/www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/wa-drought-could-be-worst-for-750-years-20100205-niee.htmlhttp:/www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n4/full/ngeo761.htmlhttp:/www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news-archive/2010/antarctic-snowfall-linked-to-west-australian-drought

This site isn't well maintained and tends to play "AGW water conservative." Reading further into this site you'll find the Northern Sierra precipitation accumulations were (as of 10/1/10) 167% of normal! Keep an eye on this site for when it catches up with the season. I think they'll be forced to sing a different tune.

Didn't you even read the headline? It says:"Australia's wettest spring but no relief for southwest WA" So only one region remained in drought conditions at the time (11/30/10)! And lately, the previously dry areas have been experiencing floods. See: http:/www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/19/3097034.htm

Once you return to near average precipitation (or greater, as in this case) the drought is effectively over.

That is not accurate. Drought is a condition of the water table, not the seasonal precipitation.

I just wanted to re-emphasize your first reference."Australia recorded its wettest spring on record for the 2010 September to November period."So you might want to read your own references.

You may want to continue reading.

For the 11-month period from January 2010 to November 2010, below average falls over the southwestern half of WA during November 2010 has maintained areas of rainfall deficiency as described in the previous drought statement and slightly increased areas of lowest on record. Some average to above average falls over inland areas of the Gascoyne and Pilbara districts have not been enough to clear the region of serious to severe rainfall deficiencies, with large areas still remaining. To relieve most areas of rainfall deficiency in WA

To relieve most areas of rainfall deficiency in WA, i.e. to just get above the tenth percentile, rainfall for December 2010 will have to be in the top 10 percent wettest Decembers on record. For the southwest corner (southwest of the line joining the points 30S, 115E and 35S, 120E) averaged as a whole, rainfall for 2010 will be the lowest on record unless rainfall for December is the second highest on record.

Whilst recent rains in eastern Australia have provided, in many cases, short-term relief, sustained periods of above-average rainfall are needed to remove very long-term deficiencies. This is especially true for the very long-term deficiency periods of 9 and 14 years

As for the snowpack, we'll see how CA does when it melts. Having more now, doesn't ensure safety from drought. Gotta wait til it melts and see at what rate, and how long it sticks around.

Well, that's hydrological drought. I'm discussing meteorological drought - as it takes awhile for the hydrological reports to catch up with the meteorology.

Who cares if it rains in the desert if none of that water is usable after the rainstorm? Hydrological drought is the only relevant drought in AGCC. meterological drought was ruled out of the models back in 92 when the predictions of more punctuated precipitation were formulated and we started looking at cloud nucleation.

but are now flooding! - as seen in my news report.

Flooding doesn't end droughts. I know that sounds counterintuitive but it isn't. Getting a great big punch of rain all at once does not significantly increase the water table. The majority of the water just runs off. You need frequent, and hopefully not flood causing rains over an extended period of time to refresh aquifiers.

Who cares if it rains in the desert if none of that water is usable after the rainstorm?

That's what water projects are for.

Hydrological drought is the only relevant drought in AGCC. meterological drought was ruled out of the models back in 92 when the predictions of more punctuated precipitation were formulated and we started looking at cloud nucleation.

Only because dire predictions weren't substantiated!

Flooding doesn't end droughts. I know that sounds counterintuitive but it isn't. Getting a great big punch of rain all at once does not significantly increase the water table. The majority of the water just runs off. You need frequent, and hopefully not flood causing rains over an extended period of time to refresh aquifiers.

Once you return to near average precipitation (or greater, as in this case) the drought is effectively over. That is not accurate. Drought is a condition of the water table, not the seasonal precipitation

Actually you are both wrong and both right. Part of the problem with talking about drought is that there are varrying definitions of drought, depending on the context in which you are speaking. Areas can report drought conditions due to excessive water usage, despite rainfall being above average. It's actually more usefull to talk about anual precipitation rather than "drought". I can site sources that say exactly that if you want me to. I read a study recently that said that, as a matter of fact, when I was doing side reading in regard to the recent physorg article about the worst case scenario for the Phoenix area.

Actually you are both wrong and both right. Part of the problem with talking about drought is that there are varrying definitions of drought, depending on the context in which you are speaking. Areas can report drought conditions due to excessive water usage, despite rainfall being above average. It's actually more usefull to talk about anual precipitation rather than "drought". I can site sources that say exactly that if you want me to. I read a study recently that said that, as a matter of fact, when I was doing side reading in regard to the recent physorg article about the worst case scenario for the Phoenix area.

I was referencing meteorological drought (precipitation).

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.

Javascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript.
In order to enable it, please see these instructions.